395 Comments

Below is my comment to The NY Times story on the appeals court special master ruling. The quotation is taken from the reported text of the ruling .

"...there was no justification for treating Mr. Trump differently than any other target of a search warrant." TFG should have been cuffed and perp-walked that day. Any other citzen would have been, and rightly so.

Merrick Garland, your path is cleared and clear. The evidence is abundant. Indictments before Christmas.

Expand full comment

Any other target of a white collar search warrant would not be cuffed and perp walked. That's a TV thing. (Also a Guiliani/Jeff Sessions world view).

The evidence may be abundant, but if you want it to stick, you need to understand that there are 900 convictions including 2 seditious conspiracy convictions and at least 4 (maybe more) grand juries doing their thing.

I want indictments (which are coming) to be prosecuted and to stick. Law is a thing, even for us.

Expand full comment

The DOJ prosecutors want no wiggle room for him when they go after death star

Expand full comment

Check and mate.

Expand full comment

Exactly, evidence must be perfect to indict a former president who lies with every word out of his mouth and who created a border around himself so those people would be liable not himself.

Expand full comment

I think Michael Cohen described this m.o. very well.

Expand full comment

Exactly! Those wishing for haste would end up seeing disasters in the courtroom. I want whatever the DOJ decides to indict tfg with to stick like glue and to be appeal-proof. Haste won’t get you that.

Expand full comment

"Mission accomplished" says the Trump team. That slick little move bought them the better part of two months. Twas a delay tactic, and delay is what happened. There will be more. DOJ is not blind to the corrupt machinations of Trump and his legal team. Hopefully they will not allow such tactics to work in the end.

Expand full comment

Without the delay, an indictment before the last election. Without the delay, Dems might still have kept the house?

Expand full comment
Dec 2, 2022·edited Dec 2, 2022

We will never know. it's like an unfortunate foul in the last seconds of a close basketball game. You can blame the player committing the foul, but you must ask "why was the game close in the first place?" The Republican way of "governing" is just plain bad for everyone except white well-to-do people and big business. That is it. These elections should not be close at all.

Expand full comment

We are witnessing the metastasizing of expectable corruption due to four decades "Reaganomic" governance for sale. The vast sums that currently influence electoral and legislative outcomes, let alone patently anti-equal-justice gerrymandering' is bought and paid for by plutocrats? No?

Not so much the assault itself on Jan 6th but the depth of preparation and support for it. The official pronouncement by the Republican National Committee that investigation of the insurrection is "Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in in legitimate political discourse" is as big a Big Lie as anything in Orwell, and indicates how close to the edge of totalitarianism we remain. Money itself is not evil but many methods of its pursuit and application certainly are. Governance for sale is the one evil ring to rule them all, and we are fools to let it grow.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, many people want to own libs despite the fact that their suffering is caused by Rs. There is a big water reckoning coming for the west and I read yesterday that for the Colorado River, it could be this coming year. Here in Oregon after a long dry summer, we are celebrating rain and the piling up of snow in the mountains....even had a light dusting in Salem yesterday.

Expand full comment

I hear that the Saudis have lobbyists and have gotten a member elected to CA political roll where he will be on the board that is going to decide over a water dispute in the West. In addition Arizona has been selling water to the Saudis, even though they hardly have any for their own people. I wonder what Mexico would have to say about that.

https://azpbs.org/horizon/2022/06/saudi-water-deal-threatening-water-supply-in-phoenix/

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/03/when-saudi-arabia-comes-to-town-and-buys-all-your-water/

Apparently the Biden administration has cut back on weapons supply to Saudi Arabian backed Yemeni government trying to broker a peace deal between them and the Iranian back Houthis. So, less leverage over Saudi Arabia with weapons, but water is weaponized too. There should be no deal where Saudi Arabia is getting Arizona water or any other USA water for that matter when there is scarcity here.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that any officials entrusted with advancing and protecting the public's interests, that allow $$$ to T%#mp those public interests, are classic examples of political "corruption". No?

Expand full comment

Thanks for the links BTW

Expand full comment

Pickpockets distract as they lift your wallet.

Expand full comment

They are certainly picking the pockets of ordinary Rs. I have a friend who does a lot of fishing and has spent time with folks in dive bars. The barstools are filled with people who are essentially failures in their own minds and using alcohol to feel better....they talk incessantly about how bad the Ds and libs are. So they vote, if they vote, to continually have their pockets picked.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the insight, please share your source re: the Colorado River shortage

Expand full comment

I wish I could remember. I can only tell you I saw it yesterday. If I happen on it again, I will reference.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Without the delay the dems still had to deal with Gerrymandered States and removal of Black democrats mainly from the rolls and the harassment of Democratic voters and the prevention in Florida of the Federal poll watchers from watching the happenings in the Democratic districts where they were assigned. Remember 21% of Blacks registered to vote were removed from rolls in Tennessee.

https://www.propublica.org/article/tennessee-black-voters-disenfranchised

I do not know that the House was won by Republicans even now. I would say it might have been stolen.

Expand full comment

Trump was already baked into the cake.

Expand full comment

I agree. If anything, I think it's possible that a pre-midterm indictment may have caused Republican "protest" votes.

Expand full comment

DoJ did what they could and minimized the delay to the extent possible. As long as there are judges willing to play along, the delays will continue. We have to hope that there will be a consummation before the Congress finds time to get involved.

Expand full comment

Activist judges.... The GQP has always been so good at projection

Expand full comment

Pickpockets sometimes scream "thief, thief" when caught in the act, and vanish in the confusion.

Expand full comment

I find it hard to believe that Aileen Cannon wasn't involved in setting up this tactic.

Expand full comment

And TFG-appointee U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon's delay tactic may have convinced just enough voters to lose the House, for now, so very likely considered a win in their book.

Expand full comment

100% Judicial corruption. Cannon is not a qualified judge. She is a stooge.

Expand full comment

Maybe those voters don't realize that the slimmest of slim margins of the GOP House "victory", coupled with the inability to make gains in the Senate, was actually a loss? I sincerely doubt that anything Judge Cannon did or didn't do had anything close to the effect of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision, with an assist by the 1/6 Committee.

Expand full comment

From your pen to the powers that be!

Expand full comment

Tuesday would be good.

Expand full comment

Yes!

Expand full comment

that would be the ultimate holiday gift!

Expand full comment

Not going to happen—if only because Garland punted and appointed the special counsel—but would that it could.

Expand full comment

I am one who believes the,Special Counsel appointment makes prosecution of Trump more likely. Probably not before Christmas, but the 11th Circuit decision is very helpful, and so is the conviction of the Oath Keeper leaders on Seditious Conspiracy.

Expand full comment

Cheryl, I'm one of the few who believes as you do. I believe that Merrick Garland appointed the Special Counsel to expedite matters. Time will tell, and everyone wants to see a speedy resolution. By now, we know that speedy resolutions seldom occur.

Expand full comment

I agree. I've never doubted Merrick Garland. I was a baby fed when he got what justice was possible for my coworkers in OK City.

Expand full comment

I never doubted him, either. On the other hand, I had confidence in guardrails in 2016 . . . .

Expand full comment

Many Millennials and younger believe Garland has changed his spots since his nomination by Obama for the slow crawl

Expand full comment

Special counsel was designed to be hard to shake.

Expand full comment

Trump and some among his enablers will be indicted. Without airtight prosecutions, the accused would walk.

Expand full comment

Michael, I agree. From what I've heard of Jack Smith, he's top-notch, and is already devoting his undivided attention to his new position. If a case can be made airtight, his reputation indicates that he can do it. The only thing worse than no prosecution of tfg and his cronies would be for the charges to have loopholes. Every one of these criminals must be taken down.

Expand full comment

Jon, In spite of all my fingers crossed, eyes squinted shut hope, I tend to agree with you about the chances that Trump will be indicted, let alone serve time. I don't put it down to Garland's naming of a Special Counsel (a decision I don't think he had much choice about), or any other particular event. My impression is that, for reasons unidentifiable, Donald Trump seems to be bullet-proof. I wonder if we are off-track in putting so much energy into the grinding details of this one man's fate, and looking away from the deeper problems that created a culture in which, even for a few years, a Donald Trump could thrive.

Expand full comment

That is a really good question. I think that the answer as to how this culture has been created lies at the feet of the dismantling of our educational system and the unrestrained access (via the internet) to a veritable trash heap of "news". It's like the "National Enquirer" goes mainstream and gets the same assumption of journalistic integrity of the NYT or WP of yesteryear.

Expand full comment

Yes, we are a woefully uninformed country. We need civics classes back, and way more critical thinking courses to counter the true fake news coming from the right

Expand full comment

Having taught government classes in the 90s, I can tell you that the students who should vote for their own benefit were not that interested. To their credit, however, they did recognize that government was necessary and did some good things for them. It was a rural high school and no amount of civics classes is going to change that culture. It will take a lot of hard work and a some kind of epiphany that it isn't those Portland libs who are the problem. This is why I commend our new D governor for choosing to visit the areas that went for her opponent first. As for critical thinking, I taught expository writing as well as Ancient and English History and I insisted on critical thinking. These were college prep classes however. I could go on about why some teachers are hired and also the present day problem of school boards and citizens more interested in indoctrination and censorship. Also religion does not encourage critical thinking most of the time.

Expand full comment

It’s not uninformed so much as information silos presenting facts and the other “alternative facts.”

Expand full comment

Oh, I think he'll be indicted. And if Democrats hold the White House in 2024 (he'll be able to prolong the case so it won't be tried by Election Day) and he is not dead or so disabled that he can't be tried, he'll be convicted. (The trial will be in DC--not a lot of his fans there.) Will he go to the slammer? He should, but for many reasons including age and mental state probably won't. (He'd get Secret Service protection in prison, so at least he'd be safe from getting shivved in the yard.)

Expand full comment

He would not get Secret Service protection in prison. He would be placed in protective custody instead.

Expand full comment

Dean,

I just finished reading the epic new book: The 1619 Project Book.

"looking away from the deeper problems that created a culture in which, even for a few years, a Donald Trump could thrive."

Grab the book and grind through it Dean. Donald Trump is not new, not novel in any way here in America. It just so happens that he is affecting white people who have not been so affected before.

However, the legal structures in place have support and do still support Authoritarian government. Indeed, from 1875 to 1965, authoritarian rule in all former slave states was the norm and called Jim Crow.

The legal rights for white men to do whatever they want to whomever they want?

Been in place a LOOOONG time.

Expand full comment

I agree the Trump is more a symptom than cause, and that he is the face of something deeper. And “The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so." I ink that rule of law took a very bad turn with the Nixon preemptive (how is that even legal?) pardon. It set a precedent for aristocratic impunity, resulting in a recent president promising pardons in exchange for crimes committed on his behalf. Jan 6th perpetrators were taking selfies because they expected "GOP" protection (and to some degree, they are getting it).

Expand full comment

Sigh. I’ve been hoping for this for so long… and you’re most likely right as the holiday is just around the corner and they have only recently received his tax records.

Expand full comment

There is abundant evidence of his crimes connected to the documents in Florida. He could be arrested before dinner today, if they wanted to do that. They don’t.

Expand full comment

I don't want them to do that until they can make it stick. I have learned a LOT about how law works (long story) and it is not the 47 minute path to self righteousness you get on TV.

Expand full comment

I understand that but we will reach a point in time when even if they have more evidence, it will be too late. We are not there yet , but we might be in 2024. At least I get a sense of urgency from Jack Smith.

Expand full comment

A reasonable fear. The circus known as the 118th Congress will suck the air out of the room that would be the chamber the present the case for conviction. I soooo want to be wrong, Jon.

Expand full comment

Ah, but having been ordered to appoint a special master, he was handed the right one on a silver Trump platter.

Too bad the SM refused to bill for his time, which Trump would’ve had to pay

Expand full comment

How many of you rush-to-judgment people have ever been the target or collateral victim of fast-track "justice"? I've come close enough over the decades to have due respect for due process, and gratitude to the government when it does likewise.

Expand full comment

Rush-to-judgement? Judgement happens at a trial, so lets get to the trial.

If any law enforcement people came to my house with a bona fide search warrant and discovered contraband; say, stolen government property, top secret, eyes-only government documents, whatever, that was listed in that warrant, I would be arrested and jailed that day. I would be arraigned that very day or the next, and a trial date would be set. Is that a rush to judgement? That scenario plays out one way or another, usually with drugs or stolen property, in the lives of ordinary citizens every single day.

Laws are meaningless without enforcement. TFG broke the law. Period. Every day he walks free undermines and is an affront to the notion that we are a nation of laws.

Expand full comment

I wrote a letter to the NYTimes today hoping that 10 or more sane Republicans in the House would join all the Democrats and elect Liz Cheney as Speaker before reading today's missive from Heather. I truly hope that is what Rep. Norman is suggesting.

While I may disagree on manymany policy issues with Cheney she has acted with integrity in her honor of Democracy above self interest. I am sure she will rein in the MAGA crazies and prevent the fiscal brinksmanship that McCarthy is promising if he is elected. Speaker.

It also would be the perfect pin in TFG's balloon to end his chances in 2024 because I am sure the investigations will continue.

I would love to see it be Nancy Pelosi's gift to America to wrangle the the Democrat's into agreement with Jefferies by her side. What a way to transfer Democratic leadership.

Expand full comment

I just did some research on Ralph Norman and his objections to McCarthy as Speaker--he is pissed McCarthy is not supporting the Republican balance the budget anti-social safety net plan. So I guess he is not likely to support Cheney. But the math remains the same--it would only take 5 Republicans to join all Democrats to bring sanity to the House,

A girl can dream.

Expand full comment

Actually, Cheney is all in on the anti-social safety net thing; she just believes that strongly in democracy. She is typical "movement conservative" as Heather would say. Even so, it would be a stick in Trump's eye to have her as speaker.

Expand full comment

No way are the freedom caucus doing anything that would make Rump look bad. They’re his cult. Maybe they nominate him. Maybe Tucker Crapson. Maybe Adolph Fuentes or the lumpy pillow man. I doubt anyone they nominate will be supported by the Dems as they are the most radical anti democracy pro Rump part of the party.

Expand full comment

I think Democrats won’t vote for someone simply because that person is anti-Trump if they could find someone who has a softer edge on Democratic priorities.

Expand full comment

Thanks for that post. Norman et al seem likely to tear their own constituency apart. I guess the eat your own young component has commenced.

In other news... I read that nation wide, the difference between D and R control of the house was 7000 votes nationwide (555ish votes in Boebert's district alone). Imagine what we could do if we got out 7000 more blue progressive gen z and INDEPENDENT votes in the next 2 years. (I do think the Roe decision drove a LOT of turnout this go round. I don't know if tossing 65 million people out of poverty and into penury - while cheating Gen X and Z workers out of any retirement at all - is the selling point they think it is.)

Expand full comment

I have read that there are several Republicans who want Trump to be Speaker, and that's what I think this guy was talking about.

Expand full comment

After reading Heather's comment about the GOP surprise speaker, tfg popped into my head , too. Sad.

Expand full comment

OMFG, but, but, do you think Trump would do that? Isn't that beneath him if he's running for President?

Expand full comment

Does the House Speaker have to win with a 50%+ majority?

Expand full comment

"To win the Speakership, a person must secure a simple majority of those present and voting. If all 435 Representatives-elect vote for a particular person, the majority would be 218. For each person who answers present or otherwise does not vote, the threshold to win a majority decreases. In effect, the threshold decreases by a vote for every two people who answer present or do not participate." source: https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2018/12/28/how-the-house-elects-its-speaker/

Expand full comment

Jerry, may I nominate you for LFAA Community Parliamentarian (LFAACPar)?

Expand full comment

I second the nomination.

Expand full comment

I third it.

Expand full comment

I’m on your Committee. The Constitution could be on the side of Justice or not. McCarthy’s threats to dismantle (that term is code for repub) our Democracy are real. So any repub is a threat. That’s not news, I know.

Expand full comment

Oh, thanks for the offer, but I only do research. Would not be a good parliamentarian.

Expand full comment

LFAACPar has good benefits. True ... most of the benefits ☀️go to the Community.🕯Thank you for that research Jerry.

Expand full comment

Attempted like

Expand full comment

When the heart button doesn’t turn red, refresh your page and it should then show it’s red. If not, just click on it again, and it should turn red. You may have to scroll to find it.

Expand full comment

Elections

When a Congress convenes for the first time, each major party conference or caucus nominates a candidate for Speaker. Members customarily elect the Speaker by roll call vote. A member usually votes for the candidate from his or her own party conference or caucus but can vote for anyone, whether that person has been nominated or not.[2]

To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes cast—which may be less than a majority of the full House because of vacancies, absentee members, or members who vote "present." If no candidate receives the majority of votes, the roll call is repeated until a majority is reached and the Speaker is elected.[2]

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Speaker_of_the_House

The Devil is in the details.

Expand full comment

Ballotpedia is an important resource.

Expand full comment

I've found it invaluable for my local candidates and issues as well as for state and federal elections.

Expand full comment

I just made Ballotpedia one of my reference pages. Thanks George 👍.

Expand full comment

Heather’s letters are rich with the flavor of history, which provides perspective and keeps me from obsessing on every political move of Congress, because that’s what it does, as it has always done.

I appreciate the days Congress does it’s job to strengthen our people and work with the world to preserve order.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, the future Speaker must win in his caucus first, before the floor vote

Expand full comment

"All candidates for speaker must be nominated by members of the House, but they don’t need to be elected lawmakers of the chamber. Article I, Section II of the Constitution says only that the House “shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other officers.” So far, the chamber has only chosen its own members as speaker.

In recent months, some Republican lawmakers have discussed nominating former President Donald Trump to the post. Non-House members who have received votes to become speaker in past years include then-former Vice President Joe Biden, Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-speaker-of-the-house-gets-picked

The precedent that is more concerning is that the House can change the rules for the election of Speaker and in two cases they chose, after many votes without anyone receiving a majority, to go with the winner by plurality which was then ratified by a majority vote.

"Sec. 3 . Election

Speaker Chosen from Members

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution directs that the House

choose its Speaker and other officers. The Speaker is the only House

officer who traditionally has been chosen from the sitting membership

of the House. Manual Sec. 26. The Constitution does not limit his

selection from among that class, but the practice has been followed

invariably. The Speaker's term of office thus expires at the end of

his term of office as a Member, whereas the other House officers

continue in office ``until their successors are chosen and

qualified.'' Rule II clause 1; 1 Hinds Sec. 187.

Nomination and Vote

The general practice for election of Speaker begins with

nominations from each party caucus followed by a viva voce vote of the

Members-elect. Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789, the Clerk

recognized for nominations for Speaker as being of higher

constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of

a Speaker and instead provide for the election of

[[Page 639]]

a Speaker pro tempore pending the disposition of certain ethics

charges against the nominee of the majority party. 2 USC Sec. 25;

Manual Sec. 27.

Under the modern practice, the Speaker is elected by a majority of

Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being present. Manual

Sec. 27; 1 Hinds Sec. 216; 6 Cannon Sec. 24. The Clerk appoints

tellers for this election. However, the House, and not the Clerk,

decides by what method it shall elect. 1 Hinds Sec. 210. For former

practices relating to the election of the Speaker, see Manual Sec. 27;

1 Hinds Sec. Sec. 212, 214, 218; 8 Cannon Sec. 3883.

In two instances the House agreed to choose and subsequently did

choose a Speaker by a plurality of votes but confirmed the choice by

majority vote. In 1849 the House had been in session 19 days without

being able to elect a Speaker, no candidate having received a majority

of the votes cast. The voting was viva voce, each Member responding to

the call of the roll by naming the candidate for whom he voted.

Finally, after the fifty-ninth ballot, the House adopted a resolution

declaring that a Speaker could be elected by a plurality. 1 Hinds

Sec. 221. In 1856 the House again struggled over the election of a

Speaker. Ballots numbering 129 had been taken without any candidate

receiving a majority of the votes cast. The House then adopted a

resolution permitting the election to be decided by a plurality. 1

Hinds Sec. 222. On both of these occasions, the House ratified the

plurality election by a majority vote."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-108/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-108-35.htm (This is a link to the manual of House Practice from the Government Printing Office).

So there are precedents for how the House chooses its Speaker--but not laws governing how the House chooses its speaker. And the precedents can be overridden by a vote of the House and have been. And we all know how much Trump and his minions want to follow precedents and norms.

So the Devil remains in the details. And I continue to dream.

Expand full comment

It will be interesting if Republicans nominate a Speaker of the House from outside government.

If one looks how the Speaker of the House has been traditionally elected in the last 75–+ years, the candidate is elected first by the majority party caucus, then the vote for that individual goes to everyone elected to Congress.

Expand full comment

.... elected to the House.

Expand full comment

My vote is Paul Ryan. Bring the “wonk” back in time to drive the math behind cutting Social Security and Medicare before the 2024 election

Expand full comment

You maybe correct about Paul Ryan, but if memory serves me, Ryan, the very benefactor of SS benefits as a child, encouraged major changes to Social Security. Changes that would have been a hardship on many receivers of this “benefit”.

Expand full comment

Ugh, with all due respect, he was a total wimp as far as I am concerned....

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

She has no people skills other than bullying, so we might have a fun show if that's the case.

Expand full comment

I think she's still buzzing around for a Trump VP invitation, so we'll see.

Expand full comment

OMFG!

Expand full comment
Dec 2, 2022·edited Dec 2, 2022

Rep. Norman is probably referring to nominating and electing Trump as Speaker of the House. That is what the far right buzz is.

In no way is any Republican thinking of nominating Liz Cheney. She has entirely too many principals and has not spent even one minute kissing up to Trump.

Sorry to say. Liz Cheney's history is behind her where Republican Party is relevant.

Now, the good thing about about Trump being Speaker of the House? Trump cannot organize a professional chef to make coffee so the Republicans will get absolutely nothing done.

Expand full comment

Trump is even less qualified for Speaker than he was for President.

Expand full comment

Anne-Louise, you're implying that tRUMP is qualified for something. I don't think so!!!!

Expand full comment

He's not even good for a laugh, is he!

Expand full comment
Dec 2, 2022·edited Dec 2, 2022

Qualifications, where Republican Presidents are relevant, are irrelevant.

We have had four of the dumbest men in history as President in my lifetime.

Ronald Reagan

Pappy Bush

George Bush II.

Donald Trump

None of these men are qualified to clean a locker room toilet, much less be President.

Expand full comment

Doesn’t “speaker” (small s) describe what he does day and night—speak?

Expand full comment

No, he "tweets." ;)

Expand full comment

Elon said he could come back, but he doesn't tweet, either!

Expand full comment

Ha Ha Ha. He qualifies.

Expand full comment

I highly doubt the Republicans will get anything done anyway. They’ll be too busy conducting pointless, base-pleasing, expensive investigations into nonsensical rabbit holes. Besides, this batch has lost any ability they ever had to govern. They don’t know how.

Expand full comment

But they know how to spread hate and demonize everything decent about those who oppose them.

Expand full comment

Either the R caucus in the House will bleed enough votes for the Ds to get things done, or 2024 will be a re-run of 1948, when Harry Truman campaigned against "the do-nothing Republican Congress".

Expand full comment

When Truman railed against the do-nothing Republican Congress, there was no credible threat to white domination of government in the US at any level, national, state, or local. Now, there are credible threats nationally and also at lower levels in almost half of the states. To maintain white dominance, Republicans must keep a significant percentage of voters away from the polls or nullify their votes through extreme gerrymandering and other methods. So far, they have succeeded and are trying to amplify their success by any means that works, no matter how vile. What decent Americans have to do now to prevail over the indecency that characterizes all Republicans is a lot harder than what Truman had to do to win reelection.

Expand full comment

They don’t want government to function. They want to dismantle it. That’s why they have no platform except to be obstructionist to anything Democrats propose.

Expand full comment

Grover Norquist now in Republican marrow—shrink government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub

Expand full comment

Well, limited small government is part of their mantra. Outside of the investigations and stonewalling, I believe they will work harder to undue things than do things.

Expand full comment

The limited small government line was a lie from the beginning, and obviously so now that the R's have openly used government powers to threaten even businesses that disagree with them. (and control women, and .....)

Expand full comment

The show must go on. THAT's what the people voted for!

Expand full comment

So, can a speaker speak from behind bars? Oh, unprecedented!

Expand full comment

His mouth will never shut, even filing appeals to St. Peter

Expand full comment

Ty Jeri, this gave me a chuckle.

Expand full comment

You mean, the likes of which has never ever been seen before?

Expand full comment

One can ran for public office from prison. You might think that a presidential candidate would be disqualified from running if they were a convicted felon.

Expand full comment

I am more inclined he is speaking of these possible individuals: Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Michael Flynn, Newt Gingrich, Devin Nunes, Mick Mulvaney, Kari Lake...and then for some knuckle-knuckle-heads: Kirstie Alley, Jon Voight, Kid Rock, Scott Baio, Roseann Barr, Ted Nugent.... gotta stop, I am getting depressed...

Expand full comment

Bill Barr?

Expand full comment

Sure. He's due for a comeback and would fit right in with that bunch. His lie backed by the media tanked Mueller's report, which needs to be re-examined.

Expand full comment

Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Mrs Clarence Thomas. Ronna ROMNEY McDaniel. Mike Lindell. That lawyer/witch. The clown car is now a bus. Send in the clowns. Thanks, Jerry. It's depressing but funny too. The lack of brain cells in this bunch of toadies.

Expand full comment

My thought too.

Expand full comment

🤮

Expand full comment

What she has in common with Trump is that she won’t hold elective office after January.

Both still technically eligible to be speaker, as am I.

Expand full comment

Wpw, this is the best news since I learned that all I had to do to be elcted to Congress was to shoot 3 Democrats (a la the Republican "hero"). But that's over, now I'm running for House speaker, John.

Expand full comment

And the bad thing about Trump being made Speaker of the house? That would put him in the presidential line of succession: 1 - Vice President, 2 - Speaker of the House.

Expand full comment

I'd forgotten about that. It must not happen.

Expand full comment

Merrick Garland's newly appointed Counsel knows the statutory penalties for the stolen NARA documents, our stolen documents, a bar to holding "any office". The documents were stolen in DC where the Grand Jury sits. I am looking for a Special Gift before the New Year..

Expand full comment

That's a very scary proposition, given all the MAGAs out there-I'm sure two of them would try to undertake a double assassination to take out #'s 1 & 2.

Expand full comment

😱😳🤯 I cannot give this a like, but Lena, it makes perfect sense why that clown car of magnuts would nominate the manbaby45. Let's hope the media will spend the next 2 weeks reminding us why tfg is a loser as president and a loser as a human being instead of repeating his lies. I am so tired of these elected liars. 🤡🤡🤡💩💩💩If only the overturning of the special master rule would restore their sanity or at least send them back under their rocks. ❤️Thank you HCR for the first half of your letter which gave me some momentary relief. ❤️

Expand full comment

If Trump were Speaker of the House, wouldn’t that provide a frightening incentive for some highly armed trained former-US-military cell of MAGA wingnuts to attempt to assassinate the President and Vice President, precisely because the Speaker is next in line for the presidency? Shudder…

Expand full comment

Is there clarification if the line of succession would go to a Democrat?

Expand full comment

Nope. It's the Speaker of the House. Political affiliation has nothing to do with the succession.

Expand full comment

And he'd wouldn't think twice about having the president and vice president assassinated.

Expand full comment

But he can suck all the oxygen out of any colosseum, leaving all gasping for air.

Expand full comment

But can he speak coherently?

“The rhetorical challenges of Trump are not just those of substance — or the lack thereof, but of syntax — and the lack thereof.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/08/15/transcribers-agony-frustrated-not-by-what-trump-says-but-how-he-says-it.html

Expand full comment

Tfg and Herschel—imagine listening to a conversation between them. Not tortured syntax, NO syntax.

Expand full comment

MLMinET, I thought exactly the same when I read some blabbering statement from Herschel that sounded like the script from one of tfg’s “presidential” rallies.

Expand full comment

I think the truth of that is universally recognised. But to certain minds that seems to have its own charm. Covfefe hats instead of MAGA?

Expand full comment

So Jane Austin! I curtsy to your concept!

Expand full comment

My thoughts exactly, Mike. I would just love trump to fade into obscurity! This girl is dreaming too! :)

Expand full comment

As to Cheney, she doesn't need to win over the Republican party or the majority of Republicans in the House, she just needs 5 plus the Democrats. Since she crossed party lines to campaign for Democrats in the midterms I think there is a possibility there compared to the alternatives from the Democratic side of things.

As to Trump, there are two Republican Congressman who voted to impeach Trump and were re-elected to the House--Valadao and Newhouse, who I doubt would vote for him for Speaker so that means 3 others to vote no for him, or six to vote present if I understand the rules. Are the 3-6 other Republicans of conscience left in the House?

Maybe Norman's surprise will be Paul Ryan or another "Never Again Trumper" who will push the Republican fiscal agenda. Ryan is certainly timing his re-entry into the Republican eye well.

Expand full comment

Do you dream?

Expand full comment

Yes I dream

Here is the list of Republican members of the House who co-sponsored the concurrent resolution to condemn and censure Donald Trump.

Rep. Reed, Tom [R-NY-23]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Gonzalez, Anthony [R-OH-16]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-39]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Upton, Fred [R-MI-6]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Meijer, Peter [R-MI-3]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Curtis, John R. [R-UT-3]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Gallagher, Mike [R-WI-8]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]* 01/12/2021

Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]* 01/12/2021

Fitzpatrick, Kim, Curtis, Gallagher, Moore and Bacon all won relection in 2022. So it is likely Trump would not have the votes to be made Speaker.

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis. But, have far right Republicans done these detailed calcuations?

Expand full comment

Thank you for posting this. Though I suppose then he'd have Rudy challenge the election as rigged. Oh, never mind, I've got Twitter brain this morning.

The more they fight, the more they fracture, I think.

Expand full comment

Today’s Letter is the first time I had heard that the Speaker of the House is not required to be an elected House member. The official House history page says that while the Speaker is not required to be a member, it always has been: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Speaker-of-the-House/

I agree it would be ludicrous if Morgan had Trump in mind for Speaker. Not only is he incompetent, he’s much too lazy. The job of Speaker requires actual work. You can’t get it done while eating cheeseburgers, drinking Diet Cokes, and yelling at the TV.

Expand full comment

The Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to the Presidency. Let's imagine the worst-case scenario for a moment. TFG named Speaker. After, both Biden and Harris die by misadventure in some form or other, and voila. TFG is the President again. Cars crash. Plane engines fail. Poisons make their way into food. Envelopes can be filled with ricin and anthrax. People break their necks tripping down stairs, or falling from high buildings. Snipers (especially these days) have effective weapons for taking out enemies.

I pray for the safety of the President and the Vice-President every day of my life.

Expand full comment

I agree. It suits his need to be headline news 24/7. And he’d be third in line for the presidency, putting distinct targets on the backs of both Biden & Harris.

Expand full comment

Of course, I forgot he'd be 3rd in line... horrors!!

Expand full comment

2nd in line. VP is first in line

Expand full comment

Well, if we want to be "purists," the Speaker of the House is the third to become President, after President and Vice-President. The "line" begins after Biden.

Expand full comment

Yes, this too is what I thought. Makes me sick, but I also know he will make a circus of it all. Unfortunately, in the end, the American people will pay with their lack of progress and rediculous policy.

Expand full comment

Not only the american people.

Expand full comment

Mike, Rescue an old woman from a bad morning and tell me you're kidding

Expand full comment

Can Trump be Speaker of The House from prison?

Expand full comment

Good question for the Supremes.

Expand full comment

Cannot fathom that Liz is on any Repub list for anything. She is about as hated as are Dems. Incredible feat for a Repub.

Expand full comment

It’s so weird. All of this. I blame Faux News. Or Fox Fiction. It has taken this country apart and down.

Expand full comment

And now we have a second source again owned by a foreigner to help keep the country split.

Expand full comment

200%, now Rupert wants a more efficient Frankenstein, may his orange clown turn his flame thrower on his maker

Expand full comment

Tucker for Speaker?

Expand full comment

Norman support Cheney? No way! While I like the idea of Liz bringing the rule of law and some semblance of dignity to the House, Norman is not in that camp. He is a certified asshole.

Read a little about him and his stunts and his arrogant attempts at humor. Think mask denial, bringing a gun into Congress, horrible jokes. Think an ally of Steve King! He is the 17th richest member in the House and his reputation is almost Klan like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Norman

Norman probably means Trump.

Expand full comment

Yep, I agree, Bill, that is his tease for something really, really interesting.

Boring. What an idiot.

🗽

Expand full comment

Thank you for doing the research. My first thought was Trump, but from jail? Not that Republicans won’t try anything. Hutchinson, currently on MSNBC, speaking about Trump is like a joke. He is being careful not to say anything good about President Biden, while managing to distance himself from Ye.

Expand full comment

Maybe, but that would be a non-starter. I’m betting on Newt, which scares the s**t out of me.

Expand full comment

Interesting. And "Newt" flows with the sick logic of a fool like Norman. The good news about all this is that we will witness the GQP eat itself. Their inane irresponsibility and stupidity may repel millions of Independents.

By contrast, Jeffries will organize the Democrats with dignity, a clear agenda and long game to help Americans.

Expand full comment

"Republican representative Ralph Norman (R-SC), who opposes electing McCarthy speaker, told right-wing media that those opposing McCarthy have a different candidate for the position. That candidate is not a House member, and Norman said: “It will be apparent in the coming weeks who that person will be. I will tell you, it will be interesting.”

May we hope and pray it will NOT be TFG.

Expand full comment

It wouldn't surprise me if it were tfg, but whether it's him, Newt Gingrich, or someone else, it's guaranteed to be a monster. Norman represents the worst of the worst, so anyone chosen by his ilk will make McCarthy look like a choir boy. It will be another serving of what we've suffered with for the last six years!

Expand full comment

Tfg might be an inspired choice for speaker. He knows absolutely nothing about Congress or how legislation is passed and would spend his time whining about his victimization and appointing Jim Jordan to committees to investigate Hunter Biden. He might believe being speaker will immunize him from indictment—but then he should check in with Dan Rostenkowski!

Expand full comment

Barbara, my only reaction is "perish the thought." I can't take much more of the insanity.

Expand full comment
Dec 2, 2022·edited Dec 2, 2022

Has no one noticed that Norman has said his candidate is ot a member of the House? Could this be one more way tfg hopes to forestall indictment? Someone else awhile back suggested that. Seems unlikely to happen (receive the necessary votes) but no more bizarre than other MAGA dreams.

Expand full comment

The point of making trump Speaker would be to impeach and or murder Biden and Pelosi to make him president again. Also, it’s a platform.

Expand full comment

Joan, you're sooooo bad! 😉

Expand full comment

It's not as if anyone thinks Trump would be a competent Speaker. They would either be endorsing chaos (very probable) or would expect some assistant Speaker to do the actual work.

Expand full comment

Why would democrats vote for Cheney for speaker? She has acted with integrity towards the insurrection and tfg but she does not agree with the Democrats’ legislative goals.

Expand full comment

My guess is that the MAGAs are negotiating with Newt Gingrich. He has the vile politics to get their support, and the skills to be Speaker.

Expand full comment

Please, my sanity was just on the verge of repair!!!

Expand full comment

Norman is very unlikely to recommend Cheney. He was appearing on an alt right media show, he is a trumper and a rabid gun rights person.

He is going to recommend trump.

Expand full comment

Georgia, Norman is an archconservative. He'd support a firing squad for Liz, who is also an archconservative, just not a Trumper, rather than offering her a leadership position.

Expand full comment

I think trump is more likely to be his pick.

Expand full comment

I doubt it would be Cheney. How about Mike Pompeo or Larry Hogan? All interesting choices. However, Democrats have comfortably voted for Hogan twice in a true blue all the way through state.

Expand full comment

I like the Hogan idea as a possibility, thinking outside the box.

There are currently on the record 8 Republicans re-elected to the House, 2 who voted for impeachment and 6 others who were brave enough to co-sponsor a bill to condemn and censure Trump for Jan. 6. I think they are the real swing voters here. That is enough to deny both Trump and McCarthy. It then becomes a test of who can draw sufficient Democratic votes to buck out the MAGA crazies/election deniers. Maybe a Republican from the Problem solvers caucus as a possibility for someone in the House.

Expand full comment

THAT is a terrific vision. May it be so!

Expand full comment

Do you think there's a chance?! Really?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Why would Dems want Cheney? Sure, she opposed mob rule and Trump’s coup, but she also is a hard right conservative who has voted against nearly every Democratic policy.

Expand full comment

It's an interesting twist. I don't think she would be interested in Hunter Biden. And she would want to protect the work of the January 6th Committee. Keep in mind that if she were to lead the GQP on a path to sins like messing with Social Security or Medicare, it's dead on arrival in the Senate. I am thinking of the 2023 House of Reps as just a bad movie nobody has to watch. As long as the debt ceiling is raised, they are just crazed puppies in regards to most other issues.

Expand full comment

Born in France, of a father serving in the USAF, my subsequent visits proved fertile and deep love for the country and the people. We are, indeed, partners in the world stage. I'm not certain of the meaning of this relationship at this point.

The current, unsustainable, and heinous war waged by Putin threatens the stability of the world over. Beyond the titillation of TFGs court skirmishes, there are potential and real famines and hardships in multiple countries due to this proxy war.

What are we to do? Who are we to say? Above us all remains the crises in climate change that will exact its own. At naturebatslast.org, renowned scholar and professor emeritus, Guy McPherson argues that we are at risk of extinction. We, as in humans. He is an advocate of planetary hospice and living with love.

As we enter this post-truth, post-equilibrium world, who do we become? What can we dream of?

Your discussions offer hope and options and I am ever grateful to and for HCR for this forum.

Blessings upon us all.

Expand full comment

Nature does indeed bat last

Expand full comment

True but, we all bat clean-up.

Expand full comment

Macron responded: “And when your soldiers came during the First and the Second World War in our country, they had exactly the same feeling. And we will never forget that a lot of your families lost children on the soils they never knew before just because they were fighting for liberty and for universal values.”

Nice to hear civility exchanged after years of sociopathic rants about "shithole countries". And yes, our soldiers fought for more that US interests. Life worth living was at stake throughout the world. Is always is to one degree or another.

Expand full comment

During the First World War, expatriate American aviators in the Lafayette Escadrille in France were integrated, unlike the segregated U.S. Military. Many American Blacks immigrated to France in the 1920s to escape American Apartheid.

Expand full comment

And then there is the "Horror on the Rhine".

Expand full comment

Yeah, looks like the Aryan Uber Mensch couldn't compete with Black men.

Jesse Owens sort of brot that home at the 1936 Olympics. Hitler was not amused.

Expand full comment

Certainly true and cherished racism, slavery, conquest and genocide, as well as sexism were and are part and parcel of the malignant narcissism, AKA evil, that afflicts our culture today. That said, human rights have clawed their way to recognition, is not complete solution over centuries, and were frankly on a roll prior to the "Reagan Revolution" (and even then). Apart from gainful social movements, and changes of law, Truman officially reduced segregation in the military. The malignantly narcissistic "supremacist" impulse is our own species' principal nemesis around the world and throughout history, and needs far more vigorous identification and resistance as such.

Expand full comment

"And we will never forget that a lot of your families lost children on the soils they never knew before just because they were fighting for liberty and for universal values.” (Macron)

I guess we should all never forget.

Expand full comment

But so many have. Betcha that many MAGAts have relatives that died doing just that. In my family, it was an 18-year-old cousin who died in Italy. My MAGAt brother is named after him. But our MAGAts know him not. A tragedy repeated across the country, sad to say.

Expand full comment

Jeri,

I really like your original term: MAGAT. Definitely appropriate language for any Republican.

Expand full comment

MAGAt mag-ut (n) a soft-bodied, consciousness lacking, RepubliQan, often found in the decaying matter of civil society. Similar to: maggot (n) a soft-bodied legless larva, especially that of a fly found in decaying matter.

Expand full comment

George Washington thought of Lafayette as a son.

Expand full comment

Thank you Heather.

I am growing so tired of the theatrics of the GOP. Their cliffhanger of who they have in mind for the next Speaker of the House is nothing more than a dog whistle to their base . I expect it will be an unqualified circus dog. The likes of Marjorie Traitor Green or Donald Trump come to mind.

I was talking to a woman from Australia last evening at an event for the Historical Museum I'm director for. She said I must be so torn with this Country. So much to be proud of, yet so much to be disgusted with.

I told her I am more disappointed than disgusted. I just don't know how we got to this point so quickly. She shrugged her shoulders and simply said, "Donald Trump".

She's right.

Be safe. Be well.

Expand full comment

It’s never just one person. Trump represents what’s been brewing and stewing for quite some time. I’m convinced having Obama (a Black man) as our President made everything move more quickly.

Expand full comment

I've made that observation myself.

Expand full comment